If you are not actually going to become a hunter and seriously learn to shoot and become part of gun culture, don't go buy a gun "in case you need it, some day." That's utter insanity. It will just result in you helping to arm other people (that you don't want to arm, that will not be your protectors) and upping the stakes in the process.
I was a fine shot in my youth. I would be perfectly comfortable being around guns for the right reason, under the right circumstances. This is not it.
Instead of preparing yourself for some Mad Max bullshit scenario where you imagine you will play hero, having never done it before in your life, just work on continuing to improve supply chain, emergency response and so forth -- in other words, keep building a more reliable and more civilized civilization. That is your best bet right there.
If you actually are a part of gun culture and know what the fuck you are doing, I am not talking about you. So don't give me shit for telling ninnies to not do this.
Thanks.
Well, I hope the person who follows your advice doesn't have an emergency situation in the next, oh, thousand years, because our current trajectory to a Star Trek utopia is lagging.
not the op, but the way I read it is that unless you are heavily invested in gun culture, meaning that you have appropriate training and you shoot regularly to maintain skill, then owning a gun makes you and your loved ones less safe.
My understanding is that research shows that gun owners and their families are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by said firearm (accidentally, or intentionally) than they are to ever actually have the opportunity to use the gun for defence.
In that context the original statement makes sense.
Given such an interpretation, I find it is more sensible to label such a person "misinformed", not suffering from "utter insanity". The latter phrase immediately shuts down, at least for me, any productive discourse.
I also used to pay accident claims. I have paid claims for dumbasses whose lack of gun safety practices maimed a child for life. I also denied one where his carelessness was so beyond the pale it was not covered.
I don't feel any need to "respect" your supposed right to promote this terrible idea.
If you want to prepare to be Mad Max, take up archery. A bow requires real skill. You won't be empowering some random jackass to kill you with your own weapon.
I take it that you've never read such research yourself; that's a gross misinterpretation (the "said firearm" qualifier is outright false).
- 1 : home invasion is incredibly rare
- 2 : injury and death by firearm, intentional or otherwise is incredibly high in the USA.
Professor Harold Pollack, who (among other things) co-directs the University of Chicago's Crime Lab: [1]
"...the everyday risks of injury, accident, domestic altercations, and suicide. The relative risks matter. And the fact is: lethal home invasions and burglaries are incredibly rare. You might not think so, since dramatic cases stick in your mind and tend to receive disproportionate press coverage. These cases are rare nonetheless."
"I had the Chicago police run the number on homicides. In 2011, precisely one homicide listed "burglary" as the motive. Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year. When you compare that to more than 18,000 gun suicides, the conclusions seem pretty obvious."
Enjoy your guns all you like, but be honest, they are a dangerous hobby and the statistical likelihood of you or a family member being harmed or killed by a gun the family owns is far higher than the chance that
- you will ever be the victim of a home invasion
- you will get the chance for a high noon shoot out with a "bad guy"
This is a well-cited article: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
[1] - http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/gun-viol...
[2] - http://www.ibtimes.com/accidental-gun-deaths-involving-child...
> seems a bit disingenuous to highlight suicide, while at the same time not including injury, rape, or loss of property that result from home invasions.
Nothing disingenuous about it.
In fact, statistically speaking, the situation is even worse. Introducing a gun into an already violent encounter significantly increases the risk of injury and death.
There is tonnes of evidence to support this. Here is one, very specific study that indirectly confirms exactly this.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249715169_Have_Gun_...
And here's another fascinating study PREDICTORS OF FIREARM USE AND EFFECTS OF WEAPONRY ON VICTIM INJURY IN VIOLENT CRIME
http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0002722/Libby_Nicholas_E_200908_Ph...
It's a long read, but well worth it if you are really interested in what the literature has to say about the often surprising ways in which guns affect the outcomes of violent crime.
And finally here's a pretty honest take on the matter from a comedian. NSFW for language https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0
The humor may not be to your taste, but the points made are fair
Here is one, very specific study that indirectly confirms exactly this.
Like i said I'm not anti gun. But saying I own a gun for protection is kind of like saying "I BASE jump to stay fit". No you don't. You do it because it's dangerous and fun. Guns are the same.
I wish more gun owners were intellectually honest and just admitted that they like their dangerous hobby in spite of the fact that
- Their chance of being a victim of violent crime such as home invasion or car jacking is unbelievably tiny
- The chance that they or a family member will be killed or injured by a family owned gun utterly dwarfs the chance that said gun will actually prevent violent crime
These are facts borne out 100% by data.
from [1], which gets most of it's data from government collected statistics. These are stats just for accidental injury!:
- "In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people.18"
- "From 2005-2010, almost 3,800 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings.19"
- "Over 1,300 victims of unintentional shootings for the period 2005–2010 were under 25 years of age.20"
- "People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.21"
- "A federal government study of unintentional shootings found that 8% of such shooting deaths resulted from shots fired by children under the age of six.22"
Again, from [2], "Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year.". 100 homicides for the ENTIRE USA related to burglary!! And i'd speculate that a significant number of these deaths were due to victims escalating the situation by drawing a gun!
That means you are 6 times as likely to accidentally kill yourself than be the victim of a murder during a burglary.
[1] http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/
[2] http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/gun-viol...
I read each of the "studies" you refer to in the years they were released, and many, many more. I've been studying criminology for 23 years.
Repeating the "I'm not anti-gun" mantra whilst referring only to anti-RKBA sources (and misquoting those) reinforces intellectual dishonesty.
And as for "Their chance of being a victim of violent crime such as home invasion or car jacking is unbelievably tiny", you really haven't examined the data. There are dozens of carjackings and home invasions (aka "hot burglary" - entering when residents are present) each month in the Bay Area alone. If you rely only on media reports, they are typically reported only as "burglaries".
What is actually "unbelievably tiny" is one's odds of being killed by an "assault weapon", yet phony claims to the contrary drive the media narrative. Drownings excluding those in swimming pools exceed homicide by "assault weapon" in the U.S.
and how many of those result in murder? Or do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok? If this is the case then we have no common ground.
My position is that being scared and losing your TV isn't grounds for ending a burglar's life.
do you believe that using lethal force to protect property is ok?
this is a classic example of emotion clouding better judgement. A more rational approach would be to look at the data:
- In 2010, there were an estimated 2,159,878 burglaries [1]
- In 2013 there were 94 murders associated with burglary
This is a 0.00435% chance that you will be killed in the course of a burglary. I'm sure this number will go down dramatically as long as you don't grab a gun ;)
[1] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
That false claim is often quoted from the Kellerman study, but an examination of his data (it took years for him to release it) revealed that in almost all such homicides, it was a gun that the intruder brought with him (predominantly male) and not one the victim owned. (Kates, 2001) The residents' gun could have been locked up in the basement, and Kellerman counted it anyway.
Or, do you have different research in mind that supports that claim?
what I said was
"gun owners and their families are far, far more likely to be injured or killed by said firearm (accidentally, or intentionally) than they are to ever actually have the opportunity to use the gun for defence"
There's really no need to muddy the waters with politics. The raw data speaks for itself :
- violent home invasions leading to murder are exceedingly rare
- accidental gun injury or death is sadly commonplace
I've already supplied many sources, so i won't repeat the stats that plainly lay out this reality
what I said was...
The raw data speaks for itself
accidental gun injury or death is sadly commonplace
The data I've presented:
- Nationwide (USA), there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year.
- In 2010, unintentional firearm injuries caused the deaths of 606 people
Feel free to confirm the figures for yourself.
Nationwide, there are about 100 burglary-homicides every year.
Here it is for you:
From the FBI[1]:
2013: Total Murders 12,253, during burglary: 94
From the CDC[2]:
2013: 505 deaths due to accidental/negligent discharge of a firearm + 281 deaths due to firearms-use with "undetermined intent"
[1]https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_Sta...
I wouldn't call that being "heavily invested" in a "culture." That skill level is better categorized as a basic competency in a specialized domain and we do a disservice to act like there is some HUGE hurdle to being a responsible gun owner. It's actually a pretty LOW bar for all but the disinterested passerby.
Why does everything have to be so damn siloed? I don't belong to a "boating culture" for learning how to operate a boat and owning a jetski. There's no "woodworking culture" that I belong to just because I can show up in a shop and start ripping boards. Both of those require serious safety training too. But they're not my primary hobbies, or something I choose to socialize around.
I agree with this in part. Firearms proficiency is a skill that you need to acquire and maintain if you want to be able to use a gun to defend yourself and your family without accidentally shooting them. This is a skill you can acquire with classes, but merely having the pistol/shotgun won't make you safer automatically.
Choosing the right weapon for your needs is not just a trip to Cabela's and I'll take the shiny one. I like what you say about supply chain. Even if as a novice you manage to kill an animal for food, do you have any idea how to process it for safe consumption. There are less resource and skill intensive ways of hunting (trapping, snaring) that can be successful. When someone says, "should I buy this gun?", it's a bit like when someone says, "should I buy this computer?" Well, it all depends what you're trying to do.
Long story short. Great post.
If you are going to buy one, then get either a shotgun or something with a lot of support[1]. Then you need to practice and understand the safety built into the gun and how to secure the weapon in your home.
1) this is why the AR-15 is so popular. a normal person can add accessories.
The great thing about firearms is that they enable a relatively untrained person to adequately defend themselves against a trained attacker.
By all means get training - but don't let that stop you.
The other big thing is that allows you to select a gun that will be easy to fire for you. Buying a gun that is a pain to fire will mean little practice and problems.
1) much shorter than most learning to drive programs
[edit] an example http://www.freestategunrange.com/firearm-training/ their pistol is 2 hours (pepper spray is 3 hours ?!?)
And even if it would be useful, the danger of owning a gun is higher than the likelihood of an emergency that you prepped for.
What makes you think that you'll be up against these "professionals"?
1. Just what are you prepping for?
2. Are you willing to kill someone to protect your few months' supply of baked beans?
People with guns don't seem to consider any other factor, besides that if the opponent has a gun, or can get yours away, you're not in a good defense position anyway. Guns are mainly useful for offense. Maybe that's why some preppers want them.
I would rely on multiple layers of complexity for defense, since that's how modern security design works. A gun is a single point of failure. A shelter or person full of extremely undesirable defenses is more reliable, less dangerous, and probably much easier to stock.
If the person trying to steal my beans will go away if I say "stop I have a gun" or simply barricade my door then I'm sure as hell not shooting them. It's a last resort.
I am hoping to never need to use my emergency kit again.
Also, you should talk to cops about pepper spray, tasers, etc. and how often they fail.
In a last resort, I don't want my attacker using my weapon against me, and if they can, I don't want it to be fatal. Which is why I don't carry knives for self defense, even though i'm trained in eskrima.
You have time for all that? Using a tazer or peper spray means your basically in well within pistol range and very close to hand-to-hand range. How exactly are you going to deploy your sound or smoke weapon?
> Guns are mainly useful for offense. Maybe that's why some preppers want them.
Guns are plenty useful for defense. Have you ever received any gun training?
Who is to say the people in this hypothetical situation just want our "baked beans"?
New question: is the reason one might want to have a gun in an emergency simply to be able to injure, maim or kill someone regardless of a specific reason?
If you say it's "for defense", remember that the concept is subjective; a robber being beaten for stealing may fear for their life and "defend" themselves. Specific reasons are less controversial and more practical.
I want to help maintain or improve the welfare of those I care about, regardless of scenario.
In order to achieve this outcome, it is usually sufficient to go to work, invest, and partake in mutually fulfilling rituals.
For the edge cases, a gun might be useful. And, in this thread, it is the edge cases that we are discussing.
I can't speak for others, but I'm prepping for a 10-15 day breakdown of the system.
As a pragmatic matter, if society is in a situation where somebody is willing to die to get a hold of my month's supply of baked beans then I'll probably be willing to kill them. As a general principle, I donate my still long from expired canned food every year when I replace it fresh.